Marie Antoinette: History as a problem in film

When atomic number 53 thinks of the Coppola, wiz inevitably thinks of the gr annihilate Francis Ford, whose forthstanding Godfather movies ingest set the bar for dramatic written reporttelling and motion-picture photography for generations of considermakers to come. However, recently, the younger Coppola, Sofia, has taken over the moviemaking role, and has want to reinvent the diachronic story of Marie Antoinette, the infamous french mogul beheaded at the lead off of the French Revolution. However, for those expecting a hard, dour, and diachronic anyy play by play stochastic variable of the sad ( virtu wholey say s foundationdalous) disembodied spirit of the tabby regnant, they be in for somewhat of a surprise.Indeed, the purposely contemporary, visually stunning twist on the well-jazzn tale is jarring in its dep machinationures from traditional historical thought. So, too the visual liberties do much to literally tear the reference to chew the fat the young queen from a different perspective. The problem is, however, although Coppola can assert that her endeavour is an trickistic sensation, it is too wiz of manipulation.That is because in the end, the earshot is to the full aw ar of the juxtaposition of their untried, interpretation of Antoinette as delivered by the require, with the overwhelming force of historical situation (in as much as we ar aware). This departure from reality in conclusion leaves the earshot feeling a micro chip cheated, as if the visual, auditory, and even literary ministrations of Coppola on the story reserve been nonhing to a biger extent thanover a cheap tricka meandering of whimsy deliberately downplaying the authorized tragedy of Antoinettes death and the serious principles behind the French Revolution.To be sure, Coppolas Marie Antoinette is beautiful. Released in 2006, the fool is set and record in Versailles. The consultation meets the young queen as a novel bride, delivered fro m her inseparable Austria to the bosom of the French chat up. From the beginning, Antoinette is presented as gentle, well-nigh simple, and kind heartedconcerned with leaving her family and her high-priced pet dog behind to start a new life of vocation and service at the behest of her family.Al close to as dramatic as the gentleness of the queen, the visual vision of the film is without par. The emblazons are as vibrant as any 50s Technicolor dream, and the screen is consistently magnificent with bright pinks, blues and pastel wonders beyond imagination. This is particularly veritable of the costuming, which is rendered in striking richness both in color and texture seconding to evoke the overweening luxury of the French Court and the life of the queen.In asset to the visually descriptive casing of the film, Antoinettes relationship with her husband is represent as amazingly genteel, with her displaying endless(prenominal) attention for her husbands quirky ways and obv ious lack of sexual prowess. Further, her distinguished role as a receive and bearer of heirs is portrayed convincingly, with visual (only) attend of the death of iodine(a) of her children in infancy.However, obscure from this reflection of historical trivia, the film does shrimpy to delve deeply into any of the issues of the time, or of Antoinettes life. Further, even the casting of Americans Kirsten Dunst and Jason Shwartzman markms to function as a way to move the film outside from historical accuracy, if only in the audiences mind. This is particularly true up when adept hears the somewhat jarring sound of Dunsts and Shwartzmans flat American accents against the stylised French-accented comments of the Mistress of the Court.Although one could say that Coppolas portrayal of Antoinette in such a candy-pink, innocent and accommodating fashion (perhaps to a greater extent devoid of malice due to her instantly forward and simple American twang) could be authentic in tha t some of it describes the queens relative youth and sinlessness as she entered the court. However, this does non progress to increase compoundity, and the audience does not curb her increase politicialization that by all historical accounts attach the last years of her life.Indeed, as historians doom out, Marie Antoinette was policy-making, some say a secondment of an activist, determined to resist the changes brewing in the midst of the growing revolutio no(prenominal) inflaming in the country. In fact, the movie come alongs to curiously, if perhaps, intentionally stay away from any true politicalization, ugliness, unrest or upheaval. Apart from one or two references to the people being hungry and their not being teeming bread, one only if does not contrive the special K people or their wage at all.What revolution?,the audience whitethorn wonder (perhaps more so amongst right aways less educated tween moviegoers). Indeed, as the film closes, we are left with nary a glimpse in to the tragic fate of the queen. Further, one would not forecast too horrible a fate, after(prenominal) all, according to Coppolas portrayal, Antoinette would never lay down been so callous as to acquit said, Let them eat cake for sure she was too good for that After all, didnt she give up getting new diamonds so that the people whitethorn eat?In addition to the creative storytelling that Coppola entertains end-to-end the film, the music, itself sets the soundtrack as a kind of accuse-making fraud to further help the audience to pose with the kind queen. Strains of roundly upbeat everyday music (Bow Wow, Cindy Lauper) make everything seem more innocent, and heck, cant the audience see they are just like us, not so foreign, not so historicYes, it could have been any wealthy American or European girl in her shoes. one(a) can even see Paris Hilton in Versailles. Under this treatment, Antoinette seems less distant, complex, serious, and important in level. In deed, all of the messages gleaned from her experiences and level seem to melt away to the tune. Yes, some classical music is incorporated into the film, plainly only after the jarring bloom of the modern has been thoroughly do.Although the cinematic techniques utilise by Coppola definitely lead the audience to reinterpret history, several of the references to historical fact are accurate. After all, the French did help the young America against Great Britain, and they did drop sizable financial stores from France (exacerbating the plight of the poor) (Brinton, 1963). However, by the time these historical points are made in the film, the other visual, dialogue, and tonal points have been made. Historical errors and downright tragedies of experience seem insignificant, just another point of oral backdrop rather than pivotal junction.In addition to the twisting of the audiences perception of Antoinette as a function of stride (visual, dialogue, etc), Coppola also departs fro m historical fact to presumptively make the movie more arouse to its audiencewho are perhaps utilise to a Dangerous Liaisons kind of film. Indeed, in departing from established historical fact and happily embracing a supposed two-timing(a) affair between Antoinette and the Count von Ferson, Coppila goes out of her way to add to history, barely for the sport value.Although one cannot defiantly prove that such an affair did not occur in reality, historical sources do not propose that it did. This is hardly a trivial point in that it further contemporizes Antoinette, implying that such matters were platitude (as they are today), and carried little consequences. The historical and unearthly reality of Antoinettes times were all to different, with serious consequences for both royal and common wives who strayed from the marriage bed. Of course none of these issues are dealt with and the whole affair is portrayed as just one more kind visual interlude among many, without meaning or serious interpretation.Given all this, if one were to stand that Coppola did in fact deliberately onset to use cinematic devices and storytelling in golf-club to create a new version of the story, is this problematic? If such a film were simple frolic the answer would be no. However, the difficulty that comes along with dealing with a historical grammatical case is that on that point is some expectation from the audience that an attempt toward accuracy be made. Yes, costumes in the Antoinette court were probably very pretty.The queen talent have been innocent, kind, sweet even. Perhaps she never did say let them eat cake. much(prenominal) an assertion would not be new (1963). However, using technique to reframe the events of the movie, be it with music, cinematography or dialogue creates both a problem with history itselfin essence changing it for the audience if they are impressionable, or though creating frustration or even anger in those who know betterand perhaps feel more than a bit cheated that the association of the character with the defining event of her times (the Revolution) was all but overlooked in film.Although Coppola, herself has verbalize that it was not her intention to deal with authorities or the political reality of her undetermined (Dudec, 2006), she doesif by omission. In fact, her infamous statement, Marie Antoinette was not interested in politics, so wherefore should I be? (2006) is problematic on many levels. First, in its erroneous self-reliance that Antoinette was not interested in politics, she indicates a real unfamiliarity with her protagonist which is troubling. Second, by not being interested in politics, one has to wonder at the nicety of Coppola dealing with the present matter at all. Can one imagine, for instance, Frances Ford Coppola asserting, I am not interested in organized crime.?Coppolas troubling stance and treatment of the subject matter was so striking when the movie was screened in Cannes tha t the audience actually booed the film. This may be in part due to the fact that Coppila did not take her information from respected historical sources. Instead, she almost exclusively drew from Antonia Frasers contemporary biography, which itself is rife with similar flaws and omissions to the movie.In the end, the audience is never privy to the meat of the Antoinette storya story that the young female audience members that Coppila obviously targets could only break from. For example, she never showcases her strength, intelligence, or real power. She does not take time to fully stupefy the immense political purview and pressures against her as a foreign queen, nor does she deal with the complex nature of her death, the differences between rumor and political reality.Of course, this is not to say that the film does not have its fans. In fact, even among French audiences some appreciated the way in which Marie Antoinette was played outside of the norm. Although some office argue that some French critics may be pleased that a large Hollywood producer would deal with the subject at all, one can mount that some found genuine comfort in the portrayalpuzzling or no.Thus, the problems with the film hinge directly on the historical material. Given any other non-historical subject matter, the same story expertness be just fine. An afternoon of entertainment and lavish visual effects. However, by choosing a historical subjectand an emotional one at that, Coppila evokes much more than she may intend. Further, the reactions of audiences must be interpreted in the context of the subject matter, not simply on the basis of film quality, direction, art or sensibility.Audiences either like the film or hate itand each opinion carries with it serious implications. After all, if one likes the film what does that say about ones view or knowledge of history? Has the magic of film influenced that opinion, and by continuation, ones historical view? Conversely, should one hate the film, would that person lack the talent to appreciate the beauty of the visual art in the film? Or, instead, does ones consciousness of the subject matter as history prohibit any such appreciation?In the end, Coppolas ending to use history as her reflect may be the downfall of the film. This because history demands a certain treatment in order to be molded into entertainment. One cannot mould entertainment into historyit simply smacks of hollowness and superficialitytwo of the most common criticisms of the film.Worse, one can see that (as in the case with this film), even in the presence of some truly owing(p) cinematography and visual beautynot to mention some pretty significant financial investments, it is not enough to overmaster the historical liberties taken with the film. It is as if her subject matter has become her stumbling block. To be sure, one can assert that the film is great in part. However, in part is not enough for true greatness. No, Marie Antoinette will be no Lawrence of Arabia, enjoyed for generations to comeand isnt that the true test of a films merit?Works CitedBrinton, Crane. A decade of Revolution 1789-1799. Harper and Row, 1963.Dudec, A. Cannes reality check. Milwaukee journal Sentinel, 25, May 2006. Retrieved on April 23, 2007, from, http//findarticles.com/?noadc=1